jJT 


IXAMINATION  OF  MR  WHITMQR£ 
OLD  STATE  HOUSE  MEMORIAL 

Moore   


' 


>&*■ 


/ 


With  the  Complimep 
I 


jpr^taneum  Bostonienee 


EXAMINATION 


OF 


Mr.  William  H.  Whitmore's 


OLD    STATE   HOUSE   MEMORIAL 

AND   REPLY   TO   HIS 

APPENDIX   N. 


BY 


GEORGE    H.   MOORE,   LL.D. 

LIFE   MEMBER   OF   THE    BOSTONIAN   SOCIETY 


Am  I  therefore  become  your  e?iemy,  because  I  tell  you  the  truth 
Gal.  iv.  16. 


SECOND  EDITION— WITH  ADDITIONS 


BOSTON : 
CUPPLES,  UPHAM   &   CO. 

THE   OLD   CORNER   BOOKSTORE. 

MDCCCLXXXVII. 


FT3.8 
D4M84 


II>v\>tarteum  Bostoniense. 


EXAMINATION 


OF 


Mr.  William  H.  Whitmore's 


OLD    STATE   HOUSE   MEMORIAL 

AND    REPLY   TO    HIS 

APPENDIX   N. 


GEORGE    HfMOORE,    LL.D. 

LIFE   MEMBER   OF   THE    BOSTOMAN   SOCIETY 


Am  I  therefore  become  your  enemy,  because  I  tell  yon  the  truth  2 
Gal.  iv.  16. 


BOSTON  »U«f  U^f 
SECOND   EDITION— WITH  ADDITIONS  >HESTNUT  H1LL.  MASSt 


BOSTON: 
CUPPLES,  UPHAM    &    CO. 

THE   OLD   CORNER    BOOKSTORE. 
MDCCCLXXXVII. 


Copyright,  1887,  by 
GEORGE   H.   MOORE. 


TROWS 

PRINTING  AND  BOOKBINDING  COMPANY, 

NEW  YORK. 


^m*- 


PREFATORY    NOTE. 


THIS  pamphlet  is  a  second  issue  of  the  third  Appendix 
to  my  second  paper  on  the  Old  State  House,  from  which 
it  is  reprinted  with  some  additions.  It  is  intended  chiefly 
for  gratuitous  distribution  to  the  members  of  the  Bosto- 
nian  Society  and  the  City  Council  of  Boston. 

In  the  latest  edition  of  Mr.  Whitmore's  Old  State 
House  Memorial,  he  charged  me  with  having  assailed  the 
City  Council  in  my  first  paper  by  "offensive"  criti- 
cisms, which  he  characterized  as  "an  unworthy  return 
for  their  great  liberality."  Being  promptly  called  upon 
to  point  out  the  offensive  criticisms,  he  was  unable  to  do 
so.  The  only  important  criticism  which  he  has  ever 
quoted  was  in  these  words  of  my  first  paper — 

11  No  such  division  of  the  space  on  the  second  floor,  as 
the  present,  existed  at  any  time  during  the  official  use 
of  the  building  by  the  Legislature,  Colonial,  Provincial, 
Revolutionary,  or  State." 

The  chief  purpose  of  the  appendix  now  reprinted  was 
to  demonstrate  the  truth  of  this  statement.  I  think  that 
purpose  was  accomplished  ;  and  that  nothing  yet  pro- 
duced by  Mr.  Whitmore  has  shaken  it  in  the  least. 

For  the  rest,  when  he  points  out  anything  I  have  written 
on  this  or  any  other  subject,  which  can  be  justly  charac- 
terized in  such  terms  as  he  has  seen  fit  to  use,  it  may  be 
my  duty  to  pay  further  attention  to  him  and  his  com- 
plaints. I  do  not  think  that  any  other  member  of  the 
City  Council  has  discovered  or  been  rendered  unhappy 
by  what  he  calls  my  "  attacks  "  on  them  or  the  Old  State 
House  ;  and  the  estimate  placed  upon  my  papers  by  our 


4  Whitmore  s   Old  State  House  Memorial. 

associates  in  the  Bostonian  Society,  has  been  shown  very 
conclusively  to  me  ;  in  the  first  place,  by  their  cordial 
reception  of  them  when  read,  and  again,  by  their  large 
orders  of  printed  copies  for  distribution.  It  is  hardly  nec- 
essary for  me  to  add  that  I  entertain  a  very  grateful  sense 
of  their  kindness  and  liberality,  which  has  not  been  dis- 
turbed in  the  least  by  the  unanimous  disapprobation  of 
Mr.  Whitmore. 

To  those  who  read  both  parts  of  this  pamphlet,  which 
are  reproduced  in  a  second  edition  with  the  express  pur- 
pose of  affording  the  means  of  direct  reference  and  easy 
comparison,  it  is  hardly  necessary  for  me  to  add  much 
by  way  of  comment  or  criticism  upon  the  performance  of 
Mr.  Whitmore.  It  speaks  for  itself,  and  the  reader  now 
and  hereafteu  will  be  enabled  to  judge  of  the  real  merits 
of  the  discussion,  as  well  as  the  temper  of  both  sides,  thus 
fully  and  fairly  presented  to  his  view. 

It  will  be  observed  that  in  estimating  the  value  and 
novelty  of  my  facts  and  researches,  Mr.  Whitmore  flatly 
contradicts  himself  on  pages  27  and  28  and  again  on 
pages  32  and  34,  in  the  passages  which  I  have  itali- 
cized ;  and  in  his  final  paragraph,  he  contradicts  all  four 
of  the  previous  editions  of  his  own  "  address  which  had 
the  sanction  of  the  Committee,"  by  altering  the  date  of 
its  delivery  from  July  nth,  1882,  to  June  29th,  1882. 
These  are  "  trifling  details,"  to  be  sure,  but  they  serve  to 
indicate  high  pressure  in  the  "tea-pot,"  so  elegantly  al- 
luded to  in  one  of  his  opening  paragraphs.  Even  if  the 
entire  series  of  his  ebullitions  were  within  the  range  of 
literary  or  historical  criticism,  a  just  sense  of  self-respect 
would  forbid  me  to  characterize  them  in  such  terms  as 
they  richly  deserve.  Charity  inspires  the  trust  that  they 
have  brought  relief  to  his  sorely  troubled  spirit,  and  shifted 
the  strain  upon  that  "impartiality  and  courtesy  in  dis- 
cussing literary  matters  "  which  he  values  so  highly. 

In  his  earnest  though  mistaken  attempt  to  identify  the 
Lion  and  the  Unicorn  with  the  ancient  Colony  Arms 
of  Massachusetts,  he  very  justly  said  that  "the  loyalty 


Reply  to  his  Appendix  N.  5 

of  our  people  to  their  chosen  form  of  government  does 
not  depend  upon  any  falsification  of  history  "  {p.  148). 
I  think  it  may  be  said  with  equal  justice  and  greater  em- 
phasis, that  the  truest  reverence  for  the  Old  State  House 
and  most  honest  regard  for  its  traditions  do  not  in 
any  degree  depend  upon  the  falsification  of  its  history. 
Enough  remains  of  its  mutilated  walls  and  timbers  to  con- 
secrate the  reconstruction  in  which  those  remains  have 
been  piously  preserved  ;  and  the  convenience  and  pro- 
priety of  the  renovated  Halls  for  the  purposes  designed 
justify  themselves.  They  need  no  defence,  for  as  they 
have  not  been,  they  are  not  likely  to  be  attacked.  No- 
body has  objected  to  the  general  plan  adopted  and  so 
well  executed  by  Mr.  Whitmore's  Committee,  and  nobody 
but  Mr.  Whitmore  himself  has  said  anything  about  the 
expense  of  the  work  of  renovation,  since  it  was  so  satis- 
factorily accomplished. 

If  he  or  any  other  member  of  the  City  Council,  charged 
with  the  absolute  duty  of  economy  in  the  administration 
of  the  public  property  and  revenues  derived  from  taxa- 
tion, finds  the  expense  which  has  been  or  is  likely  to  be 
incurred  in  devoting  this  estate  to  its  present  pious  uses, 
too  great  a  burden  on  his  conscience  ;  the  plan  which  I 
shall  now  propose  might  lift  that  burden  forever.  An  act 
of  common  honesty  and  simple  justice  on  the  part  of  the 
Commonwealth  of  Massachusetts  would  make  the  Old 
State  House  a  permanent  possession,  and  insure  its  pres- 
ervation as  the  Museum  of  Memories  of  the  historic  past, 
of  the  three-hilled  City. 

In  my  first  paper  I  brought  to  light  the  obscure  and 
previously  neglected  fact,  which  I  had  occasion  to  empha- 
size by  re-statement  in  the  appendix  (now  reprinted)  to 
my  second  paper — that  the  State  of  Massachusetts  never 
paid  the  County  of  Suffolk  for  the  appropriation  and  use 
from  1776  to  1798  of  its  property  a?id  rights  i?i  the  Old 
State  House.  Let  the  Commonwealth  now  take  up  and 
discharge  this  long  neglected  obligation  !  Let  the  Legis- 
lature provide  at  once  by  an  adequate  appropriation  to 


6  WJiitmore's  Old  State  House  Memorial. 

pay  the  long  arrears  of  rent,  adding  a  just  allowance  of 
interest,  with  proper  rests  in  its  calculation  and  statement 
of  the  account,  and  with  the  consent  of  the  County  of 
Suffolk,  let  the  money  be  devoted  to  the  endowment  of 
the  Old  State  House  !  Let  the  BOSTONIAN  SOCIETY  be 
charged  with  the  administration  of  the  trust  !  and  Boston 
will  have  one  place  of  pilgrimage  consecrated  by  grand 
and  glorious  memories  in  all  the  time  to  come — a  princi- 
pal and  perpetual  shrine  of  American  Patriotism. 

George  H.  Moore. 

New  York:  April,  1887. 


EXAMINATION    AND    REPLY   TO 
MR.  W.  H.  WHITMORE'S  "APPENDIX  N." 


The  "re-dedication"  of  the  Old  State  House,  Boston,  took 
place  on  the  nth  of  July,  1882.  Mr.  "William  H.  Whitmore, 
member  of  the  Common  Council  from  Ward  12,"  was  the  "  orator 
of  the  day,"  and  his  Address  on  that  occasion,  "  the  address 
sanctioned  by  the  Committee,"  as  he  styles  it  with  laudable 
pride,  to  distinguish  it  from  anything  of  less  authority,  was  im- 
mediately printed  in  an  octavo  pamphlet  of  seventy-seven  pages, 
of  which  a  large  number  were  circulated  like  other  public  docu- 
ments at  the  public  expense.  Since  that  time  three  other  editions 
have  been  issued  as  the  Old  State  House  Memorial,  also  at  the 
expense  of  the  city  of  Boston,  very  fully  and  handsomely  illus- 
trated, and  liberally  distributed.  These  several  editions  bear 
ample  testimony  to  the  ability  and  research  of  the  learned  orator 
and  editor,  to  whose  great  reputation  as  the  local  historian  ot 
Boston  I  ventured  to  pay  my  humble  tribute  in  my  first  contribu- 
tion to  the  history  of  the  Old  State  House.  The  several  editions 
of  the  Old  State  House  Memorial  have  gradually  increased  in 
bulk — the  latest  being  a  splendid  octavo  of  two  hundred  and  six- 
teen pages  of  text,  besides  no  less  than  thirty-three  full-page  il- 
lustrations. The  knowledge  of  the  editor,  great  as  it  may  have 
been,  has  evidently  been  added  to  in  the  course  of  these  pub- 
lications, and  he  has  availed  himself  to  some  extent  of  his  oppor- 
tunities for  correction,  painful   as  it  seems  to  be  for  him  to  sub- 


8  Whitmore1  s  Old  State  House  Memorial. 

mit  to  it.  The  present  review,  therefore,  will  be  limited  to  an 
examination  of  the  latest  revision  of  the  work,  and  chiefly  the 
latest  additions  of  the  author.  The  errors  which  he  has  ac- 
knowledged and  corrected  need  no  further  notice  ;  those  to 
which  he  obstinately  adheres  will  furnish  subjects  enough  for 
present  treatment.  If  my  readers  find  the  matter  somewhat  in- 
coherent or  wanting  in  proper  method,  I  trust  I  shall  be  ex- 
cused for  the  attempt  to  follow  that  of  my  critic,  seeking  my 
game  wherever  I  find  it,  whether  "  in  the  open  "  or  "  in  shadiest 
covert  hid."  If  I  should  be  accused  of  "  going  all  round  Robin 
Hood's  barn,"  my  only  excuse  is  that  "  I  was  looking  for  some- 
body !  " 

At  an  early  stage  of  his  labors,  Mr.  Whitmore,  we  are  informed 
by  his  architect,  discovered  "the  original  plans  of  the  building" 
at  Cincinnati  (p.  159),  and  although  we  are  subsequently  told 
the  truth  that  the  plan  thus  brought  to  light  was  evidently  the 
design  of  Isaiah  Rogers,  adopted  and  carried  out  in  the  recon- 
struction of  1830  (pp.  200,  203),  the  first  impressions  of  its  origi- 
nality seem  to  have  colored  all  the  subsequent  conceptions  of 
Mr.  Whitmore,  his  architect,  and  his  committee,  of  what  it  was 
their  province  and  duty  to  reconstruct  in  1881-82.  The  prin- 
cipal new  feature  in  the  reconstruction  of  1830,  was  the  intro- 
duction of  a  circular  staircase  in  the  centre  of  the  building,  the 
evidence  of  whose  existence  there  at  some  time  previous  to  1881 
was  "the  most  important  development"  on  stripping  the  interior 
and  accompanied  with  at  least  "  one  mysterious  circumstance  " 

(P.  159)- 

Mr.  Whitmore  says  (p.  62)  :  "  When  the  work  of  restoration 

was  commenced     ...     it  was   found  that  the  framing  of  the 

timbers  was  such  that  there  must  have  been  a  circular  stairway 

in  the  place  now  occupied  by  it,  from  the  first  floor  to  the  halls, 

and  that  the  landings  must  have  presented  their  present  form." 

It  was  found  that  the  heavy  oak  girders  were  hung  by  iron  rods 

from  the  tie-beams  of  the  roof  trusses  in  the  third  floor  ;  but  it 

seems  not  to  have  occurred  to  the  enterprising  explorers  that 

in  the  original  construction  of  the  building,  those  very  girders 

extended  from  wall  to  wall,  and  that  the  centres  had  been  sawed 

out,  and  the  Doric  pillars  beneath,  which  originally  supported  them, 

taken  away  in  order  to  make  room  for  Mr.  Rogers's  new  circular 

staircase  in  1830.     This  was  unquestionably  the  fact.     No  iron 


Reply  to  his  Appendix  N.  9 

rods  existed  there  at  any  time  before  the  supporting  pillars  were 
taken  out  between  the  first  and  second  floors  at  those  points. 
Taken  in  connection  with  the  facts  now  demonstrated,  Mr. 
Whitmore's  "  discoveries"  and  the  "  important  indications  "  of 
his  architect  are  sufficiently  ludicrous. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  pursue  these  details.  When  the  building 
was  erected  in  1712,  the  committee  was  instructed  "to  fit  the 
East  Chamber  for  the  use  of  His  Excellency  the  Governor,  and 
the  Honorable  the  Council,  the  Middle  Chamber  for  the  House, 
the  West  Chamber  for  the  Superior  and  Inferior  Courts." 
Mr.  Whitmore  says  of  the  latter  :  "  Notwithstanding  the  order 
to  construct  a  west  room  for  the  courts,  it  is  very  doubtful  if  this 
were  really  done  " — but  he  produces  nothing  whatever  in  the 
shape  of  evidence  to  justify  his  doubt,  and  in  fact,  as  will  abun- 
dantly appear,  there  can  be  no  doubt  about  it.  Every  subsequent 
description  and  allusion  to  it  sustains  the  fact,  of  which  the  proof 
is  abundant  in  records  which  demonstrate  the  existence  of  the 
Court  Room,  and  its  use  by  the  courts,  until  the  completion  of  a 
new  Court  House  in  Queen  Street,  and  its  occupation  in  March, 
1769.  Nobody  has  questioned  the  existence  of  the  Council 
Chamber  or  the  Representatives'  Chamber,  so  that  there  were 
three  rooms  of  unequal  size  known  to  be  included  in  that  second 
story.  It  is  also  perfectly  well  known  that  the  building  was  not 
less  than  one  hundred  and  ten  feet  in  length. 

If  Mr.  Whitmore's  central  staircase  occupied  no  more  than  ten 
feet  of  that  dimension  of  length,  this  would  leave  on  the  west 
side  of  it  fifty  feet  for  the  Representatives'  Chamber  and  Court 
Room.  It  needs  but  one  glance  at  the  plans  which  he  has  fur- 
nished to  satisfy  any  reasonable  mind  on  this  point.  They  show 
more  than  one  third  of  the  entire  "  space  on  the  second  floor  "  to 
be  taken  up  with  the  circular  staircase  hall,  and  the  adjoining  ante- 
rooms, and  all  in  the  centre  of  the  building  !  Can  anybody  be 
made  to  believe  that  anything  like  that  could  have  been  devised 
for  or  adjusted  to  the  purposes  and  uses  of  the  Legislature,  colo- 
nial, provincial,  revolutionary,  or  State  ?  Yet  this  is  the  enter- 
tainment to  which  we  are  invited  by  Mr.  Whitmore.  The 
thing  is  preposterous  on  its  face  !  There  is  no  evidence  what- 
ever to  show  that  there  was  at  any  time  before  1830,  any  stair- 
case (circular,  spiral,  or  straight)  in  the  centre  of  the  Old  State 
House. 


io  Whitmore 's   Old  State  House  Memorial. 

The  staircases  and  entries  with  lobbies,  and  there  were  two  of 
each  through  all  the  period  of  legislative  use  of  the  building,  never 
occupied  more  than  twenty  feet  in  all,  probably  less  than  ten 
feet  on  each  side  of  the  middle  room,  leaving  nearly  four  fifths 
of  the  space  for  the  principal  and  necessary  accommodation  of  the 
three  official  bodies  of  men  who  met  there.  The  communication 
with  the  second  and  third  floors  by  a  staircase  in  the  centre  of 
the  building  was  the  dominant  feature  in  the  plan  of  1830,  which 
had  to  provide  for  two  rooms  of  assembly,  and  various  executive 
offices  on  the  same  floor.  This  is  substantially  reproduced  in  the 
present  arrangement,  consisting  of  two  halls  of  equal  size  divided 
by  a  rotunda,  up  the  centre  of  which  rises  a  winding  stairway,  with 
four  small  rooms  in  the  corner  spaces  between  the  rotunda  and 
the  halls.  The  architects  of  the  original  building  had  to  provide 
for  three  rooms  of  public  assembly,  for  which  two  separate  ways 
of  access  were  distinctly  and  obviously  necessary,  and  are  known 
to  have  existed.  There  were  eleven  second-story  windows,  in 
each  of  the  side  walls  of  the  building,  opposite  each  other.  My 
own  conjecture  as  to  the  division  would  assign  to  the  Council 
Chamber  space  to  include  three  windows  from  the  east  wall  ;  to 
the  eastern  staircase  entry  and  lobby,  the  fourth  window  ;  to  the 
Representatives'  Chamber,  the  fifth,  sixth,  seventh,  and  eighth 
windows  ;  to  the  western  staircase  entry  and  lobby,  the  ninth 
window  ;  and  to  the  Court  Room,  the  tenth  and  eleventh  windows 
to  the  west  wall.  Making  due  allowances  for  the  partitions,  of 
which  there  must  have  been  four,  although  not  exact  for  want  ot 
exact  measurements,  we  can  come  near  enough  to  indicate  the 
general  plan,  and  demonstrate  the  utter  folly  of  Mr.  Whitmore's 
discoveries,  guesses,  arbitrary  assumptions,  and  groundless  as- 
sertions. 

But  it  is  time  to  point  out  and  do  justice  to  his  chief  discovery 
— and  his  marvellous  manipulation  of  the  recorded  dimensions  in 
figures.  I  have  quoted  his  remarks  on  the  "  find  "  of  the  circular 
stairway.  He  continues  :  "The  same  investigation  showed  that 
the  Representatives'  Hall  had  its  easterly  end  curved,  while  the 
Council  Chamber  was  square.  These  indications  coincide  with 
a  description  published  in  1791,  when  the  halls  were  still  oc- 
cupied by  the  Legislature  of  the  State,  and  when,  apparently,  no 
changes  had  been  made"  (pp.  62-63).  He  reprints  the  whole 
description  in  his  text.    The  statement  is  therein  expressly  made 


Reply  to  his  Appendix  N.  n 

that  "  the  Representatives'  Chamber  is  fifty-seven  and  a  half  feet 
in  length."  To  this  statement  Mr.  Whitmore  appends  the  fol- 
lowing note  : 

"  This  figure,  fifty-seven  and  one-half  feet,  is  an  impossibility, 
being  more  than  one-half  the  length  of  the  building.  But  thirty- 
seven  and  one-half  feet  would  reach  exactly  to  the  line  of  the 
curved  end  of  the  hall  as  shown  in  Rogers's  plans,  and  now  re- 
constructed. Evidently  the  writer  put  his  notes  of  the  measure- 
ments in  figures,  and  either  he  or  his  printer  mistook  thirty-seven 
and  one-half  for  fifty-seven  and  one-half.  The  error  really  con- 
firms the  exactness  of  the  record  "  ! 

The  description  of  the  State  House  is  in  the  Massachusetts 
Magazine  for  August,  1791,  vol.  hi.,  467-8.  The  dimensions  of 
the  chambers  are  not  given  in  figures,  but  plainly  spelled  out  in 
roman  letters — so  that  there  is  no  ground  whatever  for  the  sug- 
gestion of  error  on  the  part  of  either  writer  or  printer,  by  mis- 
taking 3  for  5.  The  measurement  was  undoubtedly  correct  and 
the  record  needed  no  error  to  confirm  it.  It  is  Mr.  Whitmore 
himself  who  sins  against  the  light,  deliberately  digging  the  hole 
and  ostentatiously  getting  into  it  ! 

Struck  by  the  wonderful  coincidence  of  one  of  the  measure- 
ments on  Rogers's  plan  and  his  own  ingenious  invention  of  a  mis- 
take in  the  figures  of  the  "contemporary  witness"  of  1791, 
Mr.  Whitmore  eliminated  the  theory  of  construction  and  re- 
construction, which  has  been  present  to  the  mind  of  the  restorer 
ever  since.  It  has  " mastered  his  intellectuals"  and  is  still  "a 
thing  of  beauty"  to  him,  though  I  fear  it  will  not  be  "a  joy  for- 
ever." His  arithmetical  ignis  fatuus  has  misled  his  judgment 
upon  every  fact  which  cannot  be  made  to  fit  his  theory.  If  he 
would  only  drop  that,  all  the  facts  would  fall  into  their  proper 
places  without  friction,  and  no  awkward  explanations  or  apologies 
would  be  necessary.  It  seems  a  pity  to  demand  such  a  sacrifice, 
but  it  cannot  be  helped.  The  "contemporary  witness"  must 
have  justice,  and  will,  undoubtedly,  secure  the  protection  of 
the  court.  And  this  is  the  "contemporary  witness,"  whom 
Mr.  Whitmore  has  the  audacity  to  charge  me  with  having 
"ignored"!  So  far  from  ignoring  the  description  of  1791,  I 
have  relied  and  still  rely  upon  it  as  accurate  and  unimpeacha- 
ble. I  agree  with  the  witness,  but  I  reject  the  utterly  ground- 
less   and    unwarrantable   alteration    of  the    testimony    deliber- 


12  Whitmore' s   Old  State  House  Memorial. 

ately  made  and  avowed  by  Mr.  Whitmore,  in  support  of  his 
theory. 

He  says  that  the  length  of  fifty-seven  and  a  half  feet  for  the 
Representatives'  Chamber  is  an  impossibility.  Wherein  is  the 
impossibility  of  it  in  a  building  one  hundred  and  ten  feet  in 
length  ?  The  impossibility  is  in  his  attempt  to  put  the  Repre- 
sentatives' Chamber  into  less  than  one-half  of  the  building  when 
divided  by  a  central  staircase — to  say  nothing  of  another  large 
public  room  with  separate  staircase  entry  and  lobby  to  be  pro- 
vided for  in  the  same  space ! 

Mr.  Whitmore's  "important  question"  is  thus  easily  and  em- 
phatically answered.  Mr.  Rogers's  plan  does  not  "  represent  in 
its  outlines  the  arrangement  when  the  Legislature  quitted  the 
building  January  n,  1798,"  or  at  any  other  time  previous  to  its 
"creation"  by  the  architect  in  pursuance  of  his  instructions  for 
the  reconstruction  of  1830  (p.  201).  Although  very  positive  in 
his  own  contrary  opinion,  the  historian  of  the  Old  State  House 
declares  his  inability  to  secure  "  definite  information  "  on  this 
point.  lb.  He  alleges  that  "  the  newspapers  of  1830  are,  un- 
fortunately, entirely  silent  as  to  the  extent  of  Mr.  Rogers's  altera- 
tions." lb.  This  statement  is  incorrect.  The  newspapers  are 
not  silent,  and  one  phrase  from  one  of  them  is  a  sufficient  answer 
to  all  this  part  of  his  apology.  The  New  England  Palladium  of 
September  24th,  1830,  says  :  "  The  interior  of  the  building  is 
wholly  altered."  It  is  needless  to  multiply  quotations  from  the 
press  to  the  same  effect.  The  alterations  were  the  chief  topic 
of  the  newspaper  references  to  what  was  going  on  at  the  Old 
State  House,  at  that  time — June  to  October,  1830. 

Let  us  accompany  the  historian  on  his  "  return  to  surer 
ground,"  to  use  his  own  phrase  (p.  202).  He  says  of  the  Council 
Chamber  that  "  its  only  entrance  was  from  the  centre  of  the 
building."  How  does  he  know  that  there  was  but  one  entrance? 
or  that  to  have  been  in  the  centre  of  width  from  north  to  south  ? 
As  to  the  centre  of  length,  east  to  west,  there  is  considerable 
difference  between  thirty-two  feet — the  place  of  the  west  wall  of 
the  Council  Chamber — and  fifty-five  feet — the  centre  of  the  build- 
ing— by  all  scales  of  measurement  with  which  I  am  familiar. 
Again,  how  does  he  know  that  any  "  winding  stairway  "  was  in 
any  part  of  the  building  as  "originally  constructed  in  1748?" 
On  the  contrary,  it  is  absolutely  certain  that  no  "spiral  stairway 


Reply  to  his  Appendix  N.  13 

was  in  the  place  occupied  by  the  present  one"  at  the  time  re- 
ferred to,  notwithstanding  "  the  report  of  the  City  Architect." 
Whatever  shape  it  may  have  had,  the  way  "from  the  second  floor 
to  the  tower"  went  up  from  one  or  both  the  eastern  and  western 
staircase  entries  and  not  from  or  out  of  any  part  of  the  Repre- 
sentatives' Chamber,  which  itself  occupied  not  less  than  one-third 
of  the  whole  space  on  the  second  floor — that  third  including  the 
centre  of  the  building. 

Mr.  Whitmore' s  speculations  about  "curved  ends"  and 
"  straight  ends,"  have  no  value  in  the  discussion,  and  might  be 
passed  without  further  notice,  as  a  part  of  a  crooked  treatment 
of  a  crooked  subject.  But  I  may  remark  in  passing  that  there  is 
not  the  slightest  evidence  or  probability  that  the  curves  in  ques- 
tion existed  anywhere  in  the  building  before  Rogers  made  them 
in  1830. 

In  the  plenitude  of  his  newly  acquired  familiarity  with  the 
"  trifling  details,"  Mr.  Whitmore  informs  us  twice  in  the  space  of 
ten  lines  on  one  point,  viz.  :  that  "it  was  not  until  1776  that 
the  State  bought  out  the  rights  of  the  county,"  and  that  it  was 
in  the  year  1776  "when  the  State  bought  out  the  county"  (p. 
201).  Now  the  State  never  bought  out  the  county  at  any 
time,  and  never  paid  the  county  anything  for  the  use  of  its 
property  so  generously  offered  in  1776,  accepted  and  used  until 
1798  !* 

Referring  to  the  plan  for  utilizing  the  Court  Room  thus  offered 
in  1776,  which  I  brought  to  light  in  my  first  paper,  Mr.  Whitmore 
ingenuously  inquires  :  "  What  plan  did  the  Committee  adopt?" 
when  the  matter  was  referred  back  to  them  with  power.  I  think 
it  is  not  unreasonable  to  suppose  that  they  carried  out  substan- 
tially the  plan  they  had  recommended.    The  House  had  approved 

*  Although  the  statement  in  the  text  is  literally  true,  it  seems  proper  to 
mention  here  that  a  motion  was  made  in  the  House  on  the  25th  September, 
1777,  that  a  committee  be  appointed  to  consider  what  sum  shall  be  paid  to 
the  county  of  Suffolk,  for  that  part  of  the  present  Representatives'  Chamber 
which  belonged  to  said  county,  whereupon  a  committee  was  appointed  to  con- 
sider the  motion,  and  report.  Journal,  88.  On  the  16th  of  October,  the 
vote  was  reconsidered,  and  a  new  committee  was  appointed  for  the  purpose 
mentioned  in  the  motion,  i.e.  to  consider  the  question  of  compensation  ;  7b. 
in,  but  it  is  evident  that  the  County  received  none  at  any  time  from  the 
State,  and  realized  their  share  only  when  the  whole  was  finally  secured  to  the 
Town  of  Boston  in  1803. 


14  Whit  more 's  Old  State  House  Memorial. 

that  plan  as  reported,  at  the  same  time  giving  them  power  to  make 
alterations.  If  they  made  any,  it  is  certain  that  they  made  no 
changes  which  would  impair  or  defeat  the  purpose  of  their  plan. 
That  purpose  was  to  obtain  more  room,  and  all  the  room  they 
could,  for  the  vast  number  of  new  members,  and  at  the  same  time 
increase  the  facilities  for  public  accommodation  in  the  galleries. 
Mr.  Whitmore  manifests  a  peculiar  intolerance  for  the  gallery, 
and  "  doubts  if  the  gallery  was  retained"  after  1776.  From  the 
beginning  of  his  researches  he  seems  to  have  cherished  a  dislike 
to  it.  In  face  of  absolute  testimony  he  almost  doubted  its  ex- 
istence at  any  time  ;  and  after  reading  my  notes  showing  what  an 
interesting  feature  it  was  in  the  history  of  the  building,  he  still 
exhibits  some  spite  against  it  and  does  not  even  give  it  a  chance 
to  cool  off  in  winter.  In  the  end,  he  parades  his  first  doubts  about 
it  and  his  apparently  reluctant  admission  of  its  existence  as  "all 
that  the  most  enthusiastic  antiquary  could  ask."  If  he  reads  my 
second  paper  with  attention,  I  think  he  will  no  longer  doubt  that 
the  gallery,  which  he  classes  with  the  Court  Room  as  "  an  ac- 
cident and  transient,"  continued  to  exist  to  the  end  of  the  State 
occupation  ;  and  was  sometimes  thronged  by  crowds  of  interested 
visitors.* 

Mr.  Whitmore  recurs  to  this  topic  in  connection  with  his  ad- 
ditional Court  House  notes  and  declares  that  these  "  notes  make 
it  plain  that  the  Gallery  in  the  Representatives'  Chamber  was  be- 
gun at  about  the  same  time  as  the  new  Court  House.  There  is 
evidently  a  connection  between  the  two  facts."  What  this  mys- 
terious connection  is  he  does  not  tell  us  :  perhaps  it  was  like 
that  of  the  Goodwin  Sands  and  Tenterden  steeple,  but  as  to  the 
rest  of  his  statement — the  records  show  that  the  gallery  had 
been  finished  and  paid  for  in  March,  1767;  the  new  Court 
House  was  not  begun  until  after  the  4th  of  May,  1 768,  and  was 
finished  and  first  in  use  in  March,  1769 — two  years  later  than  the 
gallery. 

*  The  recent  publication  of  the  Diary  and  ^Letters  of  Hutchinson  furnishes 
an  additional  notice  of  this  gallery  in  a  MS.  of  Chief  Justice  Oliver,  pre- 
served among  the  Hutchinson  Papers  in  England.      It  is  as  follows: 

"There  was  a  gallery  at  a  corner  of  the  Assembly  Room,  where  Otis, 
Adams,  Hawley  and  the  rest  of  the  Cabal  used  to  crowd  their  Mohawks  and 
Hawcubites,  to  echo  the  oppositional  vociferations  to  the  rabble,  without 
doors."  The  Editor  says  the  word  Hawcubites  "is  of  doubtful  reading." 
Diary :  i.,  145. 


Reply  to  his  Appendix  N.  15 

It  is  in  this  part  of  his  performance  that  Mr.  Whitmore  himself 
undertakes  what  a  few  pages  before  he  informs  us  "  it  is  un- 
necessary to  attempt,"  i.e.  "  to  show  what  the  probable  size  of 
the  Court  Chamber  was."  After  considerable  wrestling  with  it,  he 
finally  gets  it  down  to  thirteen  feet  in  width  !  with  the  gallery 
over  the  chamber  even  then,  and  stairs  in  the  chamber  leading 
up  to  that  gallery  !  The  intelligent  reader  hardly  needs  to  be 
informed  that  this  is  almost  too  absurd  for  comment.  Were  the 
principal  courts  of  the  Province  of  Massachusetts  held  for  a 
period  of  more  than  twenty  years  in  a  room  thirteen  feet  wide 
and  fifteen  feet  high  ?  and  that  height  diminished  during  the  latter 
years  of  its  occupation  by  thrusting  in  a  gallery  overhead,  thus 
putting  " between  decks"  judges,  lawyers  and  the  whole  judicial 
business  of  the  principal  county  in  the  Province  ?  that  county 
having  paid  one  fourth  of  the  entire  cost  of  the  whole  building, 
in  order  to  insure  suitable  accommodations.  It  is  amazing  that 
any  man  in  his  right  mind  should  indulge  in  such  ridiculous  non- 
sense, actually  figuring  it  out  (p.  210)  with  contradictory  meas- 
urements and  impossible  calculations  ! 

As  for  the  "  stairs  in  the  late  Court  Chamber  in  the  Town 
House,  so  called,  leading  up  to  the  Gallery  there,"  which  he  has 
discovered — the  order  of  the  Court  of  General  Sessions  in  May, 
1769,  to  have  them  "immediately  taken  down  "  indicates  not 
only  the  temper  of  the  county  authorities,  but  some  evidently  re- 
cent trespass  committed  on  their  property,  which  they  naturally 
enough  resented.  Negotiations  for  the  sale  or  exchange  of  their 
interest  in  the  building  had  been  going  on  for  several  years;  and 
they  had  no  reason  to  be  satisfied  with  having  the  Court  Cham- 
ber made  use  of  as  a  thoroughfare  to  the  Representatives'  Gallery, 
or  for  any  other  purpose,  without  their  permission.  The  peremp- 
tory order  of  the  Court  was  perfectly  justifiable  ;  and  I  dare  say 
that  it  was  promptly  executed. 

Mr.  Whitmore  is  careful  to  tell  us  what  he  says  "  every  one 
knows,  that  during  the  forty  years  after  the  City  Government 
quitted  this  building  [1841-1881]  and  while  it  was  leased  for 
business  purposes,  the  interior  suffered  great  changes."  He 
might  have  said  with  equal  truth  that  it  suffered  changes  quite 
as  great  during  the  time  between  its  final  purchase  by  the  town 
in  1803,  and  its  reconstruction  in  1830.  Instead  of  this,  he  says 
"  there  is  no  record  of  anv  considerable  alterations  in  the  interior 


1 6  Whitmore' s   Old  State  House  Memorial. 

between  1798  and  1830"  !  He  forgot  that  in  his  previous  pages 
he  himself  had  furnished  a  considerable  record  on  that  subject, 
which  might  easily  be  extended  (pp.  99-109).  I  will  add  but  one 
extract  which  seems  to  have  escaped  his  attention  when  he  was 
quoting  Mayor  Otis' s  grand  address.  Referring  to  the  former 
history  of  the  building,  with  which  he  was  familiar  from  child- 
hood, the  Mayor  said  : 

"In  1747  the  interior  was  again  consumed  by  fire,  and  soon 
repaired  in  the  form  which  it  retained  until  the  present  improve- 
ments [of  1830]  with  the  exception  of  some  alterations  i?i  the 
apartments  made  upon  the  removal  of  the  legislature  to  the  new 
State  House.  Since  the  removal  of  the  legislature,  it  has  been 
internally  divided  into  apartments  and  leased  for  various  uses  in 
a  mode  familiar  to  you  all ;  and  it  has  now  undergone  great  re- 
pairs, this  floor  adapted  to  the  accommodation  of  the  City  Gov- 
ernment and  principal  officers,  while  the  first  floor  is  allotted  to 
the  Post  Office,  News  Room,  and  private  warehouses." 

In  the  matter  of  dimensions — note  that  in  the  description  by 
Bowen  :  Picture  of  Boston,  Ed.  1828-9:  the  size  of  the  Ma- 
sonic Hall  is  given  as  length  43  ft.,  breadth  32  ft.,  height  16  ft. 
Mr.  Whitmore  repeats  these  dimensions  without  criticism  or 
question  or  even  comment. 

In  the  same  notice,  the  occupation  by  the  Free  Masons  is  in- 
dicated as  being  of  all  the  second  a?id  third  stories  "  except  one 
room  at  the  west  of  the  second  story  which  is  occupied  for  the  City 
Treasurer's  office.'''  It  is  also  stated  that  as  early  as  April  29, 
181 2,  the  County  Treasurer  was  assigned  a  room  adjoining  West- 
erly that  of  the  Town  Treasurer.  Mem.  Vol.  106.  When  the 
lease  was  made  to  the  Freemasons  for  ten  years  from  October  1, 
1820,  it  covered  uall  the  rooms  above  the  lower  story,  except  two 
on  CornhiH"  (i.e.  Washington  St.)  lb.  109. 

Mr.  Whitmore  has  thus  himself  furnished  in  three  editions  con- 
clusive evidence  that  there  were  still  at  least  two  ways  of  ac- 
cess to  the  second  floor  in  18 12  when  the  town  and  county 
treasurer's  offices  were  established  at  the  west  end  of  the  build- 
ing and  were  not  disturbed  by  the  Freemasons  in  1820,  when 
the  latter  leased  all  the  other  rooms  in  the  second  and  third 
stories.  Was  the  Masonic  Temple  a  thoroughfare  to  those  offices, 
or  were  they  reached  by  ladders  from  the  outside  through  the 
windows  of  the  second  story  ? 


Reply  to  J  lis  Appendix  N.  17 

Mr.  Whitmore's  later  studies  among  the  Court  records  have 
resulted  in  a  series  of  notes  under  the  sub-title  of  "  The  Court 
House  and  the  Gaol."  My  reference  to  the  Court  House  in 
Queen  Street  was  incidental,  for  the  purpose  of  indicating  the 
time  when  the  Old  State  House  was  first  disused  by  the  Law 
Courts.  It  has  turned  out  to  be  important  in  leading  Mr.  Whit- 
more  to  a  knowledge  of  the  facts  that  it  was  "  a  building  distinct 
from  the  Old  State  House,"  and  situated  in  "  what  is  now  Court 
Street."  I  also  mentioned  incidentally  the  tradition  of  Governor 
Bernard's  having  furnished  the  plans.  Mr.  Whitmore  character- 
izes "Bernard's  share  in  the  work  as  a  matter  of  tradition  only." 
This  is  true,  and  Mr.  Whitmore  is  indebted  to  me  for  all  that 
he  seems  to  know  about  it.  If  I  had  also  given  him  the  in- 
formation, he  might  (or  might  not)  have  added  that  William 
Sullivan  was  the  man  who  preserved  the  tradition.  He  was 
born  in  1774  and  died  in  1839.  He  was  familiar  with  the 
building  from  childhood  ;  and  although  he  was  not  a  contem- 
porary of  Governor  Bernard  in  Massachusetts,  the  tradition  is 
sufficiently  authenticated  by  his  statement  alone,  that  "  this 
house  was  planned  by  Governor  Bernard."  Address  to  Suffolk 
Bar:  37. 

The  same  authority  states  that  "in  the  Hall  in  the  centre  (over 
the  first  floor,  formerly  used  as  the  Exchange),  the  representatives 
assembled.  Adjoining  this  hall,  at  the  westerly  end,  was  the 
judicial  court  room."     Ibid.  36,  37. 

Mr.  Whitmore's  contribution  to  the  history  of  the  new  Gaol, 
which  he  says  "was  erected  at  the  same  time"  with  the  new 
Court  House,  also  needs  correction.  He  furnishes  in  the  same 
sentence  the  record  evidence  that  it  was  "  finished  the  twenty-first 
day  of  March,  1767;"  and  (as  I  have  previously  stated)  the  new 
Court  House,  begun  more  than  a  year  afterward,  was  not  finished 
and  occupied  until  March,  1769. 

He  also  says  that  before  the  settlement  of  accounts  for  the 
construction  of  the  Gaol,  it  was  "greatly  injured  by  a  fire."  * 
This  is  his  way  of  stating  the  fact  which  appears  of  record,  that 
it  was  "  entirely  consumed  by  fire,  no  part  thereof  but  the  stone 


*  Mr.  Whitmore  makes  the  same  remark  on  page  57  with  respect  to  the 
Town  House.  He  says  it  was  "greatly  injured  by  a  fire,"  in  1747,  the  fact 
being  that  it  was  entirely  destroyed,  except  the  bare  walls.     Cf.  p.  175. 


1 8  Whitmore's  Old  State  House  Memorial. 

walls  being  left."  *  On  page  154,  he  reprints  for  the  third  time 
without  correction  the  blunder  of  a  writer  whom  he  quotes,  giv- 
ing the  date  of  that  fire  as  the  30th  June,  instead  of  the  30th 
January,  1769.  If  he  had  never  met  with  the  Court  records,  he 
might  have  made  the  correction  from  the  newspapers  of  the  day 
without  much  exertion. , 

The  county  building  was  called  the  New  Court  House  at  first 
because  it  was  a  new  Court  House,  and  afterwards  to  distinguish 
it  from  the  Province  Court  House — although  the  latter  was  even 
then  more  frequently  called  the  Town  House,  especially  by  the 
citizens  of  Boston.  When  Powars  and  Willis  established  their 
"  New  England  Chronicle"  in  Queen  St.  in  June,  1776,  it  was 
published  "at  their  office  opposite  the  new  Court  House  in 
Queen  St."  but  on  the  7th  of  November,  they  emphasized  the 
word  "new,"  by  printing  it  in  small  capitals — "at  their  Office 
opposite  the  New  Court  House  in  Queen  St." 

In  1769  "the  Town  Hall"  meant  "  Faneuil  Hall" — the 
"Town  House."  was  what  is  now  the  Old  State  House.  Appeal 
to  the  World :  etc.,  1769,  p.  28.  So  also  in  1770,  the  testimony 
in  the  trial  of  the  soldiers  shows  that  the  building  was  commonly 
called  and  known  as  "  the  Town  House."  Trial,  etc.  ;  1770, 
pp.  20,  28,  32,  40,  48,  52  :  and  especially  86.  At  this  period, 
too,  the  name  was  emphasized  by  the  persistent  efforts  of  the 
popular  party  to  compel  Hutchinson  to  bring  back  "  the  General 
Court  to  its  ancient  and  constitutional  place,  the  town-house  in 
Boston."    Journal  H.  of  R.  1770,  p.  36. 

The  confusion  of  these  names  may  have  led  Mr.  Whitmore 
into  his  error  of  supposing  that  the  trials  of  Michael  Corbett  and 
others  before  the  Special  Court  of  Admiralty,  in  1769,  as  well  as 
the  trials  of  Captain  Preston  and  his  soldiers,  in  the  following 
year,  took  place  in  the  Old  State  House.  No  evidence  is  fur- 
nished to  prove  that  either  of  them  was  "held  in  this  hall",  and 

*  For  an  account  of  the  burning  of  " the  new  Jail"  January  30,  1769, 
see  Boston  Chronicle,  February  2,  1769.  Further  particulars,  trial  of  the 
prisoners  who  fired  it,  etc.,  in  same  paper;  February  6,  April  7,  and  May  1, 
1769.  Vol.  ii.  39,  43,  in,  140.  "Nothing  remained  but  the  bare  stone 
walls."  "  The  loss  to  the  county,  by  burning  of  the  goal  (sic)  is  estimated 
at  ^3000  sterling."  Cf.  the  Massachusetts  Gazette,  February  2,  1769,  and 
Holt's  Journal:  February  16,  1769,  in  which  it  is  described  as  "the  large 
new  coitnty  gaol." 


Reply  to  J  lis  Appendix  N.  19 

it  is  certainly  not  true  that  both  the  latter  occurred  in  the  same 
month  of  October,  to  which  they  are  assigned  by  the  learned 
orator.  Preston's  trial  began  on  the  24th  of  October  and  held 
six  days.  The  Court  was  adjourned  to  November  20th,  and  the 
trial  of  the  soldiers  began  on  the  27th  and  held  nine  days.  The 
trial  of  those  accused  of  firing  on  the  people  from  the  Custom 
House  windows  was  on  the  12th  December:  when  the  jury  ac- 
quitted them  all  without  leaving  their  seats.  Appendix  to  Trial, 
etc.  1770.  On  the  14th  of  December,  two  of  Preston's  soldiers, 
who  had  been  found  guilty  of  manslaughter,  prayed  the  benefit 
of  clergy,  which  was  allowed,  and  they  were  branded  in  the 
hand  in  open  court  and  then  discharged.  The  benefit  of 
clergy  was  taken  away  in  Massachusetts  by  a  law  passed  March 
11,  1785. 

"  A  few  days  after  the  trials,  while  the  Court  continued  to  sit, 
an  incendiary  paper  was  posted  up,  in  the  night,  upon  the  door 
of  the  Town  House,  complaining  of  the  court  for  cheating  the 
injured  people  with  a  show  of  justice,  and  calling  upon  them  to 
rise  and  free  the  world  from  such  domestick  tyrants.  It  was 
taken  down  in  the  morning,  and  carried  to  the  Court,  who  were 
much  disturbed,  and  applied  to  the  lieutenant  governor,  who  laid 
it  before  the  council,  and  a  proclamation  was  issued,  which  there 
was  no  room  to  suppose  would  have  any  effect."  Hutchinsori s 
Mass.,  iii.  330.  Hutchinson's  proclamation  against  the  authors 
of  a  paper  posted  upon  the  door  of  the  Town  House  in  Boston 
is  in  the  Mass.  Gazette  of  December  13,  1770.  The  paper  and 
lines  "  stuck  up  at  the  door  of  the  Town  House"  are  in  the 
same  newspaper,  Draper's  Mass.  Gazette :  No.  3507,  December 
20,  1770. 

It  is  hardly  worth  while  for  me  to  take  up  the  confused  state- 
ments and  repetitions  of  the  "Appendix  F.  p.  154  "  to  which  Mr. 
Whitmore  directs  attention  on  p.  207.  It  is  evident,  however, 
chat  he  has  profited  by  study,  if  not  instruction,  since  he  wrote 
that  part  of  his  work  :  for  he  has  discovered  that  the  Court  House 
and  Gaol  figured  in  his  extract  from  Osgood  Carleton's  Map  of 
1800  are  the  same  which  were  there  in  1769.  But  he  is  not 
contented  with  this — adding  that  "the  Court  Records  not  only 
show  that  there  were  two  separate  buildings  in  1769,  viz.  :  a 
Court  House  and  a  Gaol,  but'also  a  brick  Probate  Court  build- 
ing there."  * 


20  Whitmore  s  Old  State  House  Memorial. 

The  fact  is,  however,  that  the  "  brick  Probate  Court  building ' 
was  not  "there"  in  1769.  It  had  been  erected  in  1754  and 
repaired  in  1756,  as  appears  from  the  records  of  the  Court  of 
General  Sessions  which  he  quotes  :  but  in  1768,  it  was  "  taken 
down,  for  the  better  Accommodation  and  Convenience  of  a  New 
Court  House  " — by  order  of  the  Court  which  determined  at  the 
same  Sessions  upon  the  erection  of  that  new  Court  House,  in 
which  a  new  Probate  office  was  duly  provided  for.* 

Mayor  Otis  in  the  inaugural  address  so  often  quoted  refers  to 
the  "offices  for  the  clerks  of  the  supreme  and  inferior  courts" 
which  were  "  on  the  north  side  and  first  floor"  of  the  Old  State 
House.  "  In  them  (he  says)  the  Judges  robed  themselves  and 
walked  in  procession  followed  by  the  bar  at  the  opening  of  the 
courts." 

After  the  removal  of  the  courts  to  the  new  Court  House  in 
1769,  these  offices  continued  to  be  kept  in  the  Town  House, 
and  the  procession  became  a  more  imposing  and  conspicuous 
affair  in  marching  thence  to  the  new  place  for  holding  the  courts. 
It  must  have  been  a  striking  scene — the  procession  of  official 
personages  with  all  their  proper  insignia,  the  Judges  with  rich 
robes  of  scarlet  English  broadcloth  in  their  large  cambric  bands 
and  immense  judicial  wigs,  and  all  the  barristers-at-law  of  Bos- 
ton and  the  neighboring  counties,  in  gowns,  bands  and  tie-wigs. 
Something  certainly  was  lost  when  "  the  trumpet,  the  scarlet,  the 
attendance  "  were  taken  away  from  judicature. 

The  following  extracts  from  the  newspapers  of  the  day, 
confirm  tne  accuracy  of  the  tradition  preserved  by  Mayor 
Otis,  and  present  a  lively  suggestion  of  the  scenes  in  1774  and 

1785: 

"Boston:  Sept.  1,  1774.  Last  Tuesday  [August  30th]  being 
the  day  the  Superior  Court  was  to  be  holden  here,  the  Chief 
Justice,  Peter  Oliver,  Esq.,  and  the  other  Justices  of  the  said 
Court,  together  with  a  number  of  gentlemen  of  the  Bar,  attended 
by  the  High  and  Deputy  Sheriffs  walked  in  procession  from  the 
state-house  to  the  Court  House,  in  Queen  Street."  [On  this  oc- 
casion all  the  members  of  the   Grand  and  Petit  Jury  panels 

*  It  is  a  fact  worth  mentioning  here  that  the  earliest  notice  of  any  occupa- 
tion of  the  building  which  I  have  met  with  is  an  advertisement  that  "The 
Probate  Office  for  the  County  of  Suffolk  is  now  kept  in  the  new  Court 
House,  Boston."     Massachusetts  Gazette:  March  9,  1769. 


Reply  to  his  Appendix  N.  21 

refused  to  serve  and  to  take  the  oath — a  full  account  of  proceed- 
ings, &c.  follows.]      Gaine :  No.  1196,  September  12,  1774. 

11  1785.  August  30.  The  Supreme  Judicial  Court  opened 
Tuesday,  August  30th,  in  this  town  with  the  usual  Solemni- 
ties. The  following  was  the  order  of  procession  from  the  State 
House — 

Constables  with  their  Staves  2  and  2 

Deputy  Sheriffs 

High  Sheriff 

Clerks  of  the  Court  B*S^ 

The  Honorable  the  Judges 

The  Attorney  General 

Barristers,  Attornies,  &c.  &c." 

Cefitinel :  Aug.  31,  1785. 

Doubtless  other  and  more  recent  examples  might  be  cited.  I 
have  not  the  means  at  hand  to  determine  when  these  formalities 
ceased  to  be  observed — though  I  am  under  the  impression  that 
some  of  the  elder  members  of  the  Bar  in  Boston  may  recall  them 
among  their  youthful  experiences. 

Among  the  "  trifling  details "  not  excluded  from  notice  in 
"  the  address  sanctioned  by  the  committee,"  the  carving  of  the 
ancient  arms  of  the  colony,  which  was  one  of  the  interior  deco- 
rations of  the  building,  is  made  to  "  point  the  moral  and  adorn 
the  tale  "  as  a  part  of  Mr.  Whitmore's  defence,  if  not  exalta- 
tion, of  the  royal  emblems,  whose  perennial  contest  for  the  crown 
is  curiously  symbolized  by  their  bold  reproduction,  at  least  twice 
as  large  as  the  original,  in  the  angles  of  the  eastern  facade  of  the 
Old  State  House. 

In  my  first  paper,  I  referred  to  the  figure  of  the  Indian  in  the 
arms  of  the  Commonwealth,  as  a  survival  of  that  in  the  centre 
of  the  colony  seal  and  arms.  A  comparison  of  the  two  may  be 
interesting.  The  survival  is  described  in  the  language  of  heraldry, 
as  "  an  Indian  dressed  in  his  shirt  and  mogossins,  belted  proper, 
in  his  right  hand  a  bow  topaz,  in  his  left  an  arrow,  its  point 
towards  the  base  of  the  second,"  etc.  His  predecessor  was 
dressed  in  his  long  hair,  so  exaggerated  as  to  resemble  a  very 
full-bottomed  wig — with  a  breech-cloth  and  perhaps  moccasins 
— not  girded  or  belted  at  all,  but  with  his  bow  where  it  ought  to 


22  Whitmore  s  Old  State  House  Memorial. 

be,  in  the  left  hand,  and  his  arrow  in  the  right,  his  attitude  being 
by  no  means  hostile,  though  sufficiently  warlike. 

It  is  a  fact  worthy  of  notice  that  when  the  Society  for  the 
Propagation  of  the  Gospel  in  Foreign  Parts,  the  great  Missionary 
Society  of  the  Church  of  England,  was  established,  its  founders 
seem  to  have  taken  a  hint  for  the  design  of  its  seal  from  this  old 
one  of  the  Governor  and  Company  of  the  Massachusetts  Bay. 
The  Macedonian  cry,  however,  is  no  longer  the  individual  appeal 
in  English  of  a  single  savage,  but  floats  in  a  Latin  scroll  over  a 
number  of  people,  who  are  figured  as  running  towards  the  shore 
of  the  sea,  on  which  is  borne  towards  them,  with  swelling  sails 
a  ship,  from  the  bow  of  which  a  clergyman  holds  out  the  token 
of  good-will  in  the  shape  of  an  open  Bible  or  Prayer  Book. 

Mr.  Whitmore  gravely  informs  us  (p.  147)  that  "  although  no 
specimen  is  now  known  of  the  Colony  Arms,  it  cannot  be  doubted 
that  they  were  the  same  as  those  on  the  Great  Seal"  of  the 
Province.  If  the  Province  Arms  were  the  same  as  those  on  the 
Province  Seal,  why  should  we  suppose  that  the  ancient  arms  of 
the  Colony  were  other  than  the  device  on  the  Colony  Seal  ? 
And  how  would  the  Lion  and  the  Unicorn  look  in  the  capacity 
of  supporters  for  that  primitive  Massachusetts  Indian  ?  His 
pitiful  cry  for  help  would  indeed  be  an  appropriate  motto  for  a 
naked  savage,  flanked  by  two  such  beasts  entirely  unknown  then 
as  now  in  the  American  fauna. 

Mr.  Whitmore  has  bestowed  a  good  deal  of  critical  operosity 
on  this  subject  of  the  Massachusetts  Seal,  and  it  is  largely  due 
to  him  that  the  great  seal  of  the  Commonwealth  now  has  a  solid 
foundation  of  suitable  legislation.  The  evolution  of  the  arms 
thus  established  by  statute  reflects  little  credit,  however,  upon 
their  manipulation  in  any  generation  since  the  first.  Their  story 
is  told  in  House  Document  No.  345,  April,  1885.  Paul  Revere' s 
patriotism  was  evidently  of  a  much  higher  quality  than  his  genius 
as  an  artist  or  skill  as  an  engraver — if  it  is  to  his  performances 
upon  the  arms  and  seal  that  we  must  refer  the  transformation  of 
the  original  type  of  the  savage  warrior  into  the  left-handed  and 
more  or  less  civilized  Indian  of  the  later  period.  The  early 
Massachusetts  engraver  who  made  the  cuts  representing  the 
Colony  Seal  for  the  various  publications  of  laws  in  1672  and 
afterwards,  was  more  faithful,  keeping  the  bow  in  the  bow-hand, 
and  preserving  in  other  respects  the  verisimilitude  of  his  subject. 


Reply  to  his  Appendix  N.  23 

Ln  1775  the  committee  charged  to  produce  a  new  Colony  Seal 
went  back  to  the  Indian ;  but  portrayed  him  with  a  Tomahawk 
and  Cap  of  Liberty  !  This  was  changed  into  a  straddling,  if  not 
bowlegged  English-American,  holding  a  sword  in  his  right  hand 
and  Magna  Charta  in  his  left,  with  the  famous  Latin  motto  by 
Sidney,  "  Ense  petit  placidam  sub  libertate  quietemV  When 
in  1780  they  came  back  to  the  aboriginal  type,  they  restored 
the  bow  and  arrow,  but  in  the  wrong  hands  respectively.  It 
might  have  been  fortunate  if  the  House  Committee  on  the 
Judiciary,  in  1885,  while  studying  proper  legislation  on  the  Great 
Seal  of  the  Commonwealth,  had  been  as  well  instructed  in  archery 
as  they  were  in  heraldry. 

The  architect's  report  mentions  one  or  two  u  minor  details  " 
deserving  notice,  of  results  obtained  when  the  "  careful  carpen- 
ter" made  the  thorough  examination  "for  more  than  four  weeks 
under  the  immediate  observation  "  of  Mr.  Whitmore  and  himself, 
in  order  to  detect  "any  hidden  traces  left  of  the  original  interior." 
The  marvellous  coincidences  revealed  of  conformity  to  the  plan 
of  re-construction  by  which  new  partitions  had  been  put  in  fifty 
years  before,  would  be  much  more  to  the  purpose,  if  proof  could 
be  offered  of  any  resemblances  in  either  to  the  original  building 
of  1748-9.  In  view  of  the  fact,  however,  that  but  one  of  these 
partitions  could  possibly  have  been  a  part  of  the  original  build- 
ing, we  cease  to  regard  the  discovery  of  their  "  indications  "  with 
any  considerable  interest. 

So,  too,  with  respect  to  the  windows,  which  Mr.  Whitmore 
has  asserted  to  be  original,  as  well  as  the  walls,  timbers,  and 
floors.  It  can  be  demonstrated  that  "  new  window  frames,  sashes, 
&c,"  were  a  part  of  the  reconstruction  in  1830. 

It  would  not  be  difficult  to  point  out  other  errors  of  statement 
in  more  or  less  "  trifling  details  ;"  but  I  am  not  disposed  to  find 
fault  with  the  enthusiastic  imagination  of  the  orator  of  the  day 
who  had  "  the  sanction  of  the  committee  "  upon  such  an  occa- 
sion— and  I  forbear. 

Mr.  Whitmore,  very  unexpectedly  to  me,  has  taken  it  upon 
himself  to  treat  my  paper  as  though  I  had  wantonly  attacked  the 
Committee  of  the  City  Council  of  Boston,  of  which  he  was  the 
chief  member,  and  criticised  their  doings  in  an  "  offensive"  man- 
ner. I  am  not  conscious  of  having  done  anything  of  the  kind  ; 
and  on  my  request  to  him   to  point  out  the  criticisms  to  which 


24  Whitmore' s  Old  State  House  Memorial. 

he  referred,  1  regret  to  say  that  he  failed  to  do  so.  It  is  Mr. 
Whitmore  alone  who  says  that  the  truth  of  my  statements  would 
furnish  a  serious  ground  of  complaint  against  the  committee. 
My  statements  were  true,  as  I  have  now  shown  "  with  confirma- 
tion strong."  Yet  I  have  neither  made  nor  suggested  any  such 
complaint,  though  I  will  not  at  this  time  withhold  my  opinion  that 
his  own  aggressive  and  unnecessary  defence  does  no  honor  to  his 
committee,  and  will  reflect  little  credit  upon  its  author.  Unless 
I  am  seriously  mistaken,  the  head  and  front  of  my  offence  con- 
sists in  my  substantial  correction  of  Mr.  William  H.  Whitmore 
in  matters  respecting  which  he  justly  enjoys  a  high  reputation 
for  knowledge  and  skill  as  a  historical  critic  and  local  antiquary. 
He  must  pardon  me,  if  in  acknowledging  his  great  merits,  I  stop 
short  of  recognizing  his  infallibility. 

"  Hanc  veniam  petimusque  damusque  vicissim." 


H 


w 


'y** 


*& 


w 


•'■ 


